ArticlePDF Available

Quantum-Like Interferences of Experimenter's Mental States: Application to "Paradoxical" Results in Physiology

Authors:
  • Independent Researcher

Abstract

Objectives: “Memory of water” experiments (also known as Benveniste’s experiments) were the source of a famous controversy in the contemporary history of sciences. We recently proposed a formal framework devoid of any reference to “memory of water” to describe these disputed experiments. In this framework, the results of Benveniste’s experiments are seen as the consequence of quantum-like interferences of cognitive states. Design: In the present article, we describe retrospectively a series of experiments in physiology (Langendorff preparation) performed in 1993 by Benveniste’s team for a public demonstration. These experiments aimed at demonstrating “electronic transmission of molecular information” from protein solution (ovalbumin) to naïve water. The experiments were closely controlled and blinded by participants not belonging to Benveniste’s team. Results: The number of samples associated with signal (change of coronary flow of isolated rodent heart) was as expected; this was an essential result since, according to mainstream science, no effect at all was supposed to occur. However, besides coherent correlations, some results were paradoxical and remained incomprehensible in a classical framework. However, using a quantum-like model, the probabilities of the different outcomes could be calculated according to the different experimental contexts. Conclusion: In this reassessment of an historical series of memory of water” experiments, quantum-like probabilities allowed modeling these controversial experiments that remained unexplained in a classical frame and no logical paradox persisted. All the features of Benveniste’s experiments were taken into account with this model, which did not involve the hypothesis of “memory of water” or any other “local” explanation.
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
197
Quantum-Like Interferences of Experimenter's
Mental States: Application to “Paradoxical”
Results in Physiology
Francis Beauvais
ABSTRACT
Objectives: “Memory of water” experiments (also known as Benveniste’s experiments) were the source of a
famous controversy in the contemporary history of sciences. We recently proposed a formal framework devoid of
any reference to “memory of water” to describe these disputed experiments. In this framework, the results of
Benveniste’s experiments are seen as the consequence of quantum-like interferences of cognitive states. Design:
In the present article, we describe retrospectively a series of experiments in physiology (Langendorff preparation)
performed in 1993 by Benveniste’s team for a public demonstration. These experiments aimed at demonstrating
“electronic transmission of molecular information” from protein solution (ovalbumin) to naïve water. The
experiments were closely controlled and blinded by participants not belonging to Benveniste’s team. Results: The
number of samples associated with signal (change of coronary flow of isolated rodent heart) was as expected; this
was an essential result since, according to mainstream science, no effect at all was supposed to occur. However,
besides coherent correlations, some results were paradoxical and remained incomprehensible in a classical
framework. However, using a quantum-like model, the probabilities of the different outcomes could be calculated
according to the different experimental contexts. Conclusion: In this reassessment of an historical series of
“memory of water” experiments, quantum-like probabilities allowed modeling these controversial experiments
that remained unexplained in a classical frame and no logical paradox persisted. All the features of Benveniste’s
experiments were taken into account with this model, which did not involve the hypothesis of “memory of water”
or any other “local” explanation.
Key Words:
memory of water, quantum-like probabilities, quantum cognition, entanglement, contextuality, non-
local interactions
NeuroQuantology 2013; 2: 197-208
One explanation might be that the data had been
generated by a hoaxer in [Benveniste’s]
laboratory.” (Maddox 1988)
Introduction
1
Some words – such as “memory of water” –
have the remarkable property to induce rapid
and strong physiological reactions in readers,
especially if they are also science editors. No
doubt that classical Pavlovian conditioning is
Corresponding author: Author name
Address: Francis Beauvais, MD, PhD. 91, Grande Rue, 92310 Sèvres,
France.
Phone: + 33 1 45 34 92 20
Fax: +33 1 79 72 31 60
beauvais@netcourrier.com
Received April 9, 2013. Revised April 15, 2012.
Accepted April 25, 2012.
eISSN 1303-5150
at work (Reiff et al., 1999). The present article
should not induce any hypertensive response
since I will describe a series of Benveniste’s
experiments without reference to modification
of water structure whatsoever. Indeed, I
proposed recently to model these controversial
experiments with some notions inspired from
the generalized probability theory that is the
core of quantum physics (Beauvais, 2012;
2013). Strictly speaking, the possibility of
“memory of water” was not definitely
dismissed; it is always difficult to prove that
something does not exist. Nevertheless, all
difficulties encountered by Benveniste
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
198
(reproducibility, disturbances after blinding)
were described in this quantum-like model,
which did not require the hypothesis that
water had been “structured” or “informed”.
The controversy with the journal
Nature and its editor has been extensively
discussed (de Pracontal, 1990; Schiff, 1998;
Benveniste, 2005; Beauvais, 2007; Thomas,
2007; Beauvais, 2012). The above quote of J.
Maddox, the editor of Nature during the
“Benveniste’s affair”, is a good indicator of the
state of mind of some scientists faced with the
puzzling results on the effects of high dilutions
reported in the Nature’s article (Davenas et
al., 1988). Less known are the experiments
performed by Benveniste’s team after
publication of the controversial article in 1988.
Thus, a large series of blind experiments with
the same basophil model was performed under
the supervision of statisticians and statistically
significant results were obtained in favor of the
effects of high dilutions confirming both the
results of 1988 in Nature and other results
previously published with the same biological
model (Davenas et al., 1987; Benveniste et al.,
1991). Nevertheless, Benveniste abandoned
basophils and searched for other models that
were less disputed.
One of the biological systems that were
routinely used in Benveniste’s laboratory
namely the isolated perfused
rodent heart preparation (Langendorff
preparation) was shown to respond to high
dilutions of various pharmacological
compounds (Hadji et al., 1991; Benveniste et
al., 1992). The Langendorff heart preparation
is a classical model of physiology, which allows
recording pharmacological effects of biological
compounds or pharmacological drugs on
different parameters of a rodent heart
maintained alive. In early experiments with
high dilutions, coronary flow appeared to be
the most sensitive parameter. This biological
model had the advantage to be more objective
than basophil counting, which depends on the
judgment and skill of the experimenter.
Moreover, with the Langendorff preparation,
the biological effects of high dilutions were
directly observed in the series of tubes that
collected the effluent from coronary arteries.
Therefore, in contrast with the basophil model,
the effects of high dilutions could be shown in
real time to scientists interested by this
research who visited the laboratory.
In 1992, Benveniste reported that he
was able to transmit the “molecular
information” contained in an aqueous solution
by placing a tube containing a biologically
active compound in an electric coil at the entry
of a low-frequency amplifier; the “biological
information” was said to be transmitted to
naïve water contained in another tube placed
in a second electric coil wired at the amplifier
output. In a further refinement (1995), the
“molecular signal” was digitized and stored on
the hard disk of a personal computer and
could then be “replayed” in a second time to
naïve water. Benveniste coined then the term
“digital biology”. In the last version (1997), the
coil was directly fixed on the perfusion column
of the Langendorff system and therefore the
system could be piloted from the computer
without injection of the samples of “informed”
water into the perfusion circuitry. The results
obtained with these successive devices were
published as posters and abstracts at
congresses (Aïssa et al., 1993; Benveniste et
al., 1994; Aïssa et al., 1995; Benveniste et al.,
1996; Benveniste et al., 1997; Benveniste et al.,
1998). If true, these “discoveries” were
ground-breaking, but they received great
skepticism (Schiff, 1998; Beauvais, 2007).
In order to convince other scientists
that his controversial research was well-
founded, Benveniste organized regular public
demonstrations during years 1992–1998.
During these demonstrations, experimental
samples were produced and blinded by
participants (Beauvais, 2007). The samples
were then assessed on the Langendorff system.
The initial objective of these demonstrations
has however never been achieved because an
unexpected phenomenon occurred repeatedly.
Indeed, after unblinding of the masked
experiments, a “signal” was frequently found
with “control” tubes whereas some samples
supposed to be “active” were without effect.
Benveniste generally interpreted these failures
as “jumps of activity” between samples and as
a logical consequence he concluded that
“informed” water samples should be protected
from external influences, particularly
electromagnetic waves. Despite additional
precautions and further improvements of the
devices, this weirdness nevertheless persisted
and was an obstacle for the establishment of a
definitive proof of concept (Benveniste, 2005;
Beauvais, 2007; Thomas, 2007; Beauvais,
2008; 2012).
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
199
The purpose of the present article is
first to describe in detail such a demonstration
that comprised a series of experiments made
in parallel; these experiments were blinded
and closely controlled by observers not
belonging to Benveniste’s team. The aim of
these experiments was to demonstrate
“electromagnetic transmission of biological
activity” to naïve water. In a second time, we
will see how the results of these experiments
that remain inexplicable in a classical
framework, are easily described in a quantum-
like model without reference to “memory of
water”.
Methods
The protocol of the experiments of May
13th
1993
The public demonstration described in this
article included four parallel independent
blind experiments starting on May 13
th
1993.
For this purpose, a written protocol precisely
described the experiments and defined the role
of each participant. After completion of all
measurements, the raw data were presented to
the participants before unblinding. An internal
report reported the results and included all
data and original records.
This series of experiment was designed
and proposed to Benveniste by Michel Schiff
who was a former physicist who turned next to
psychology and social sciences (Schiff et al.,
1978). He was amazed by the “memory of
water” controversy and had no a priori
opinion on the debate on “memory of water”.
Schiff proposed to Benveniste to spend time in
his laboratory to get information on this
research; in exchange he could bring help,
particularly for design of experiments,
statistical analysis and supervision of
experiments. Schiff joined Benveniste’s
laboratory half-time during years 1992–1993;
he reported his experience in a book (Schiff,
1998). The purpose of the demonstration was
to convince the participants that it was
possible, according to the title of the internal
report, “to dissociate molecular information
from its support and to transmit it to naïve
water”.
The electronic devices have been
described in details elsewhere (Thomas et al.,
2000); it was composed of a low-frequency
amplifier with a coil wired at input (for
pharmacological solution) and a coil wired at
output (for “imprinting” of naïve water). The
biological model was the Langendorff
preparation, which allows maintaining alive a
rodent heart while pharmacological agents are
injected into the circuitry to modify some
physiological parameters (Beauvais, 2007;
2012). Change of coronary flow was the main
biological parameter that was recorded with
this system in Benveniste’s experiments on
“memory of water”.
On May 13
th
1993, the participants to
these experiments met in a laboratory at Paris.
Four parallel experiments of “electronic
transmission” were performed by four teams;
each team was composed of two participants
who were not members of Benveniste’s
laboratory. An original method for blinding of
sample labels was used so that nobody knew
the original label until unblinding. The
molecule to be transmitted was ovalbumin and
rats of which hearts were used for
measurements had been sensitized to
ovalbumin.
The successive tasks of each two-
participant team (one participant performed
the experimental handlings and the other was
a witness) were the following: choice of ten
plastic tubes containing distilled water from a
stock and choice of ten padded envelopes from
a stock; one tube was placed in each envelope.
One envelope was chosen and the respective
tube was placed on the output coil of the low-
frequency amplifier (a tube containing
ovalbumin at 10 µmol/L was always present on
the input coil). After 15 min, the “transmitted”
tube was placed again into the envelope with a
self-adhesive label attached inside the
envelope. The nine other tubes of naïve water
were left untouched and the ten envelopes
were mixed for randomization. Then all tube
received labels with code: each tube was
extracted from envelope (without looking
inside), received a self-adhesive label and an
identical label was placed on the envelope
(outside); the labels were 1 to 10 for experience
#1, 11 to 20 for experience #2; 21 to 30 for
experience #3 and 31 to 40 for experience #4.
All envelopes were given to a bailiff who kept
them until unblinding. Before and after each
“ovalbumin transmission”, one open-label
transmission was also performed by a member
of Benveniste’s team (positive controls).
The 40 blinded tubes and the 8 open-
label positive controls were then transported
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
200
to Benveniste’s laboratory at Clamart, in the
inner suburbs of Paris. The content of all
samples was assessed from May 13 to 17 on the
Langendorff device: for homogeneity of
results, each series was tested on the same
heart (one heart per series). For each of the
four experiments, one open-label water sample
(negative control), one open-label sample of
“transmitted” ovalbumin (positive control)
and the ten blinded samples were assessed;
the last sample was a sample of ovalbumin at
0.1 µmol/L (positive control at “classical”
concentration).
After a first measurement of all
samples, the tubes received a new code and
another round of measurements was
undertaken. This interim blinding was
performed by Schiff and another member of
Benveniste’s laboratory not involved in these
experiments.
The quantum formalism in brief
In quantum physics, all the knowledge on a
physical object is summarized by a state vector
. For a system S with two possible states S
1
and S
2
(e.g., disintegrated and non-
disintegrated states of a radioactive atom), the
state of the system S is described by the
following state vector:
1 2S
a S b S
 
This equation means that before
measurement the quantum object is in a
“superposed” state described by the sum of
two state vectors. It is important to note that
the indetermination of the state of the system
before measurement is total (there is no
“hidden variables”). After measurement
(“reduction of the quantum wave”), the
probability P1 to observe S
1
is a
2
and the
probability P2 to observe S
2
is b
2
.
In classical probability theory,
probabilities add. Thus, if P1 and P2 are the
probabilities associated to two mutually
exclusive events S
1
and S
2
, the probabilities for
either event to occur is Prob (S
1
or S
2
) = P1 +
P2. In contrast, in quantum probability theory,
probability amplitudes add and probabilities
are calculated as the square of probability
amplitudes. Thus, if a and b are the probability
amplitude associated to two events S
1
and S
2
(with P1 = a
2
and P2 = b
2
), then:
Prob (S
1
or S
2
) = (a + b)
2
= P1 + P2 +
interference term.
The interference term is added or
subtracted to classical probabilities according
to sign to give quantum probabilities.
The notion of non-commutable
observables is another key concept of quantum
probabilities. Physical “observables” are
mathematical “operators” and for each
operator there is a spectrum of possible
results, which are named the “eigenvectors” of
the operator (they constitute an orthogonal
basis in the vector space). When an operator is
applied to a state vector, the vector is split into
different components, which are the
eigenvectors of the operator (Figure 1). If the
original state vector to be observed is an
eigenvector of the operator, then it is not
affected (this means that the value of the
parameter to be measured was already fixed
before measurement). Two observables are
said to commute with each other when they
share eigenvectors (the shared eigenvectors
are not affected by the measure of the other
observable). As a consequence, the outcomes
will be different according to the order of the
measurements. When two observables are not
commutable, the set of eigenvectors of one
observable (orthogonal basis) can be expressed
as a linear combination of the set of
eigenvectors of the other observable; in other
words, there are two different bases for the
same vector space.
Type-1 and type-2 observers in
quantum-like model
The point of view of the different types of
participants/observers must be precisely
defined. We will now refer to an “inside”
observer as a type-2 observer and an “outside”
observer as a type-1 observer.
The emphasis placed on the different
points of view of observers is reminiscent of
the thought experiment named “Wigner’s
friend” proposed in the early 1960s by the
physicist Eugene Wigner (Figure 2)
(D'Espagnat, 2005; Wikipedia, 2013).
Actually, “Wigner’s friend” was an extension of
another famous thought experiment, namely
Schrödinger’s cat. Wigner’s friend is supposed
to perform a measurement on a macroscopic
system (Schrödinger’s cat) linked to a
microscopic quantum system (radioactive
atom), which is in a superposed state before
measurement. Wigner remains outside the
laboratory and he has no information on the
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
201
state of his friend. At the end of the
experiment, from the point of view of Wigner’s
friend, the cat is either dead or alive
(“collapse” of the quantum wave from a
superposed state). From the point of view of
Wigner, the cat is in a superposed state of the
two possible outcomes: cat dead and alive
(with Wigner’s friend in the corresponding
state). If Wigner enters the laboratory or has
information on the result of the experiment
(“collapse” of the quantum wave), he learns
that the cat is dead or alive and his friend is in
the corresponding state. This is the
“measurement problem”: we have two valid
but different descriptions of the reality with
apparent “collapse” of the quantum wave at
different times according to the different
observers.
Figure 1. Design of an experiment exhibiting quantum-like interferences (application to Benveniste’s experiments). The
quantum object (cognitive state A of the experimenter) is symbolized by the state vector
A
ψ
and is measured through two
successive observables, which are mathematical operators. The first observable (“labels”) splits the state
into two
orthogonal states (denoted
IN
A
and
AC
A
). Each of these two states is split by the second observable (“concordance of
pairs”) into two new orthogonal states,
CP
A
and
DP
A
. It is assumed that the observables do not commute. If the events
inside the box are not measured/observed, the system is in a superposition of states, which is not equal to a mixture of the two
states. The consequence of superposition is that quantum probabilities to observe
CP
A
or
DP
A
are different compared
with classic probability. Indeed, quantum probabilities (P
II
) are calculated as the square of sum of probability amplitudes of
paths; classical probabilities (P
I
) are calculated as the sum of squares of probability amplitudes of paths.
In Benveniste’s experiments, the type-1
observer (“outside”) is the equivalent of
Wigner whereas type-2 observer (“inside”) is
the equivalent of Wigner’s friend (Figure 2).
The type-2 observer is on the same “branch of
reality” of the experimenter with experimental
device (i.e., Schrödinger cat); the type-1
observer considers that the type-2 observer (or
the experimenter) is in a superposed state
(until he interacts with him).
Statistical analysis
The raw data were obtained from the internal
report of Schiff and Benveniste and the
analysis of the results was reassessed. The
biological parameter that was recorded during
these experiments was the coronary flow
recorded for 15 min (one time point per min).
When a signal was recorded, the flow change
was maximal at 3–4 min after injection of
sample into perfusion circuitry and flow
returned to basal value before 10 min. The
area under the curve (AUC) method was used
to present the results in this article. The mean
and standard deviations of background were
calculated with the nine samples (in each of
the four experiments) that did not significantly
change the coronary flow. The experimental
result obtained with each sample was
expressed as the number of standard
deviations of background from mean
background. Another method was used to
summarize the results in the internal report of
Schiff and Benveniste; the results were
sufficiently clear-cut to lead to identical
conclusions for identification of samples
associated to signal and background in each
experiment.
Observable #1
Observable #2
Observable #2
A
ψ
CP
A
DP
A
IN
A
(a)
(b)
AC
A
P
II
(A
CP
) = |a cos θ + b sin θ|
2
P
I
(A
CP
) = a
2
cos
2
θ + b
2
sin
2
θ
11
= cos θ)
12
= –sin θ)
22
= cos θ)
21
= sin θ)
P
II
(A
DP
) = |b cos θa sin θ|
2
P
I
(A
DP
) = b
2
cos
2
θ + a
2
sin
2
θ
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
202
Figure 2. Type-1 observer (Wigner) and type-2 observer
(Wigner’s friend). In this thought experiment, two points of
view are successively considered. From the point of view of
Wigner who has no information on experiment outcome, the
chain of measurement including his friend is in an
undetermined state at the end of the experiment (superposed
state). There is “collapse of the quantum wave” when Wigner
enters the laboratory and learns the outcome of the
experiment. From the point of view of Wigner’s friend,
“collapse” occurs when he looks at the measurement
apparatus at the end of the experiment and he never feels
himself in a superposed state; on the contrary he feels that
one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. Therefore
two valid but different descriptions of the reality coexist in
this thought experiment with apparent “collapse” of the
quantum wave at different times according to information
that observers get on quantum system. In Benveniste’s
experiment, we make a parallel with Wigner (type-1 observer)
and Wigner’s friend (type-2 observer) to define the point of
view of the different participants/observers.
Results
Results of the four experiments and
interpretation by Benveniste’s team
The results of the two rounds of measurements
in the four parallel experiments are described
in Table 1 and Table 2. As “expected”, a signal
corresponding to one sample and only one
emerged from background in each 10-samples
series in first round of measurements: label #8
in first experience, label #17 in second
experience; label #21 in third experience and
label #34 in fourth experience. This is not a
trivial comment since, according to
mainstream science, no effect at all was
supposed to occur.
Table 1. Results of the Benveniste’s experiments of May 13
th
, 1993: first round of measurements after blinding by type-1
observers.
Exp. #1 Exp. #2 Exp. #3 Exp. #4
Label # Result Label # Result Label # Result Label # Result
Blind samples: in each series, 9 “inactive” labels (water) and 1 “active” label (Ova. tr.)
1 -0.5 11 1.5 21 13.2 31 0.6
2 -1.2 12 -1.3 22 -0.5 32 0.6
3 -0.8 13 -0.6 23 -1.0 33 0.6
4 0.2 14 -0.6 24 -0.5 34 10.8
5 2.0 15 -0.6 25 0.1 35 0.6
6 -0.8 16 -0.6 26 -1.0 36 -0.9
7 -0.1 17 21.4 27 0.6 37 1.0
8 16.0 18 0.8 28 2.2 38 0.6
9 0.6 19 1.5 29 -0.5 39 -1.7
10 0.6 20 0.1 30 0.6 40 -1.3
Open-label samples
Water
a
-0.5 Water -1.3 Water 0.6 Water -0.2
Ova. tr.
b
8.1 Ova. tr. 9.0 Ova. tr. 19.5 Ova. Tr. 14.5
Ova.
c
43.7 Ova. 37.2 Ova. 27.9 Ova. 20.2
Results are expressed as the number of standard deviations of background from mean background (see Methods section).
Results corresponding to “emergent signal” are in bold characters in grey boxes.
a
Negative control of water (no “transmission”)
b
Positive control: water “informed” with ovalbumin (Ova.) “transmitted” (tr.) through electronic device
c
Positive control: ovalbumin at “classical” concentration (0.1 µmol/L).
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
203
After the second round of
measurements, again a signal corresponding
to one sample and only one emerged from
background in each experiment. As indicated
in Table 2, the four samples that were
associated with signal for the second round
were the same than for the first round despite
interim blinding. This was an important result
for Benveniste’s team, since it strongly
suggested that all series were successful.
Table 2. Results of the Benveniste’s experiments of May 13
th
, 1993: second round of measurement after interim blinding by
type-2 observers (in-house blinding).
Exp. #A (Exp. #1)
Exp. #B (Exp. #3) Exp. #C (Exp. #4) Exp. #D (Exp. #2)
Label # Result Label # Result Label # Result Label # Result
Blind samples: in each series, 9 “inactive” labels (water) and 1 “active” label (Ova. tr.)
A (6)
a
- B (30) 1.8 D (32) 0.3 C (14) 1.6
E (8) 25.1 F (25) 0.0 H (31) 1.1 G (11) 1.6
O (3) 1.3 N (27) 0.0 J (35) 1.1 I (16) 0.4
Q (2) -1.3 P (21) 11.6 M (38) -0.5 K (13) -0.5
U (4) 0.0 W (28) 0.0 S (39) 1.1 L (18) 0.0
V (7) -1.3
AB (29) -0.9 T (40) -1.4 R (19) -0.9
AA (1) 1.3 AG (26) -1.8 Z (33) -1.4 X (15) -0.9
AD (9) 0.0 AH (22) 0.9 AE (36) -0.5 Y (20) -0.9
AF (5) 0.0 AI (24) 0.0 AK (34) 11.7 AC (17) 4.1
AM (10) 0.0 AJ (23) 0.0 AN (37) 0.3 AL (12) -0.5
Open-label samples
Water
b
0.0 Water 2.7 Water 1.1 Water 0.0
Ova. tr.
c
9.3 Ova. tr. 8.9 Ova. tr. 19.1 Ova. tr. 6.6
Ova.
d
- Ova. 20.6 Ova. 23.1 Ova. 7.4
Results are expressed as the number of standard deviations of background from mean background (see Methods section).
Results corresponding to “emergent signal” are in bold characters in grey boxes.
a
Number between parentheses is label # from Table 1.
b
Negative control of water (no “transmission”)
c
Positive control: water “informed” with ovalbumin (Ova.) “transmitted” (tr.) through electronic device
d
Positive control: ovalbumin at “classical” concentration (0.1 µmol/L).
On May 19, all participants had a
meeting at the same location as previously in
Paris to assist to the unblinding of the
experiments. Results were first presented and
then envelopes were opened by the bailiff for
unblinding. Labels that were “expected” to be
associated with signal were revealed: #8, #18,
#26 and #34. Therefore, experiments #1 and
#4 were successes and experiments #2 and #3
missed the target.
These results were considered as
illogical by Benveniste’s team. Indeed, this was
a half-success: two experiments had signal at
the expected place; but why the target was
missed in the two series of measurements
despite coherent results after interim in-house
blinding was baffling. Schiff calculated the
probabilities of different scenarios supposing
an experimental artifact (internal report). The
first hypothesis was that the artifact was
located in the measurement device
(Langendorff preparation) supposing a
discontinuous functioning in an all-or-nothing
manner. The second hypothesis was that
contamination of some tubes would be
responsible of all-or-nothing effects. In both
cases (random false positive results or random
contamination), the probabilities were very
low and these hypotheses were rejected. Schiff
concluded that only trivial errors (such as label
mistakes between transport of tubes after
blinding and first measurement) could explain
these weird results. No objective data however
supported this conclusion. It is important to
note that these hypothetical scenarios rested
on the assumption that “something” was
present in water samples. This is what could
be named a “local” interpretation.
Benveniste concluded that the
experimental devices needed to be improved
and he continued his endless technical pursuit
for the decisive experiment. Among other
improvements, he developed what he named
“digital biology” to reduce the possible
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
204
contaminations or electromagnetic
interferences. However, the spontaneous
“jumps” of activity between “active” and
“inactive” samples and other weirdness
persisted (Beauvais 2007).
In the next parts of the text, we will
describe these experiments using quantum-
like probabilities.
The quantum-like formalism applied to
Benveniste’s experiments
Definitions
The purpose of the experiments performed by
Benveniste was to assess the rate of
concordant pairs, namely “inactive” samples
(IN) with background noise (“”) and “active”
samples (AC) with signal (“”). In other words,
we must quantify the correlation between
“expected” results and observed results.
We define P
I
(A
CP
) as the probability for
the cognitive state (named A) of the
experimenter to be associated with concordant
pairs (CP) according to classical probabilities;
P
II
(A
CP
) is the same probability according to
quantum probabilities. P
I
(A
DP
) and P
II
(A
DP
)
are the respective P
I
(classical) and P
II
(quantum) probabilities for discordant pairs
(DP).
We describe the experimental situation
from the point of view of an external observer
that knows the initial state of the system and
does not perform any measurement /
observation.
Open-label or type-2 blinding
The state vector of the cognitive state A of the
experimenter is described in terms of the
eigenvectors of the first observable (cognitive
states A indexed with labels IN and AC):
A IN AC
a A b A
 
for each sample in
each series.
The probabilities a
2
and b
2
associated
with the states A
IN
and A
AC
are the proportions
of samples with IN and AC labels, respectively.
We develop the eigenvectors of the first
observable on the eigenvectors of the second
observable (concordance of pairs). We
postulate that the cognitive states A indexed
with “labels” and the cognitive states A
indexed with “concordance of pairs” are non-
commutable observables:
11 12IN CP DP
AAA
 
 
21 22AC CP DP
A A A
 
 
Therefore, we can express
A
as a
superposed state of
CP
A
and
DP
A
:
11 21 12 22
( ) ( )
A CP DP
a b A a b A
 
 
The probability of A
CP
is the square of the
probability amplitude associated with its state:
2
11 21
( )
II CP
P A a b
 
 
Type-1 blinding
If a type-1 observer has blinded the labels, the
context of the experiment changes. In this
case, one observable (labels) is measured
/observed by the type-1 observer and not by
the experimenter as above; this is formally
equivalent to a which-path measurement in
single-particle experiment. The cognitive state
A cannot interfere with itself (there is no
superposition of
IN
A
and
AC
A
) and classical
probabilities apply for calculation of the
probability of concordant pairs (Figure 1):
( ) ( ) ( | ) ( ) ( | )
I CP IN CP IN AC CP AC
P A P A P A A P A P A A 
With
2
11
(|)
CP IN
P A A
and
2
21
( | )
CP AC
P A A
,
then:
2 2
2 2
11 21
( )
I CP
P A a b
 
 
Similarly,
2 2
2 2
12 22
( )
I DP
P A a b
 
 
.
We note that, in the general case, the
probability for A to be associated with
concordant pairs is dependent on the
experimental context (open-label/type-2
blinding vs. type-1 blinding) since we find
P
I
(A
CP
) ≠ P
II
(A
CP
). The difference is due to the
interference term.
Simplification of the formalism equations
Since
1
2
12
2
11
,
1
2
22
2
21
and
1)()(
DPIICPII
APAP , we can easily calculate
that
11 21 22 12
 
 
,
2 2
11 22
 
and
2
21
2
12
.
Thus, we can write:
11 21IN CP DP
AAA
 
 
21 11AC CP DP
A A A
 
 
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
205
We note that the matrix for change of basis is a
rotation matrix; counterclockwise rotation has
been chosen for appropriate concordance
(experimenter’s choice) between labels
(IN/AC) and biological outcomes
(background/signal):
11 12 11 21
21 22 21 11
cos sin
sin cos
   
   
   
 
   
 
 
Therefore,
( cos sin ) ( cos sin )
A CP DP
a b A b a A
   
   
The formulas of P
II
(A
CP
) and P
I
(A
CP
) become
(Table 3 and Figure 1):
P
II
(A
CP
) = |a cos θ + b sin θ|
2
P
I
(A
CP
) = a
2
cos
2
θ + b
2
sin
2
θ
with
P
I
(A
CP
|A
IN
) = cos
2
θ and P
I
(A
CP
|A
AC
) = sin
2
θ
The formulas of P
II
(A
DP
) and P
I
(A
DP
) are
similarly calculated:
P
II
(A
DP
) = |b cos θa sin θ|
2
P
I
(A
DP
) = b
2
cos
2
θ + a sin
2
θ
with
P
I
(A
DP
|A
IN
) = sin
2
θ and P
I
(A
DP
|A
AC
) = cos
2
θ
In a previous paper, this model allowed
describing Benveniste’s experiments without
any reference to “memory of water”,
“electronic transmission”, “digital biology” or
any other “local” explanation (Beauvais, 2013).
Just supposing superposed states and non-
commutable observables, the quantum-like
model described the main characteristics of
Benveniste’s experiments: emergence of signal
from background, different outcomes
according to type-1 or type-2 blinding and
apparent “jumps of activity” between samples.
We remind briefly these issues using the
quantum-like model.
Emergence of signal from background
If θ = 0, then the observables are commutable:
cos sin
1 0
IN CP DP
CP DP CP
A A A
A A A
 
 
 
sin cos
0 1
AC CP DP
CP DP DP
A A A
A A A
 
 
 
In this case, the two observables share their
eigenvectors:
IN CP
A A
and
AC DP
A A
.
The observation of concordant pairs is always
associated with label IN (i.e., IN always
associated with ”) and the observation of
discordant pairs is always associated with label
AC (i.e., AC always associated with ”). In
other words, no signal is observed when the
observables are commutable (θ = 0) since only
background is associated with both IN and AC
labels. Therefore, non-commutable
observables are necessary for signal
emergence. The signal must be one of the
possible states of the system, even with a low
probability. Thanks to entanglement, the
probability of signal increases. In a previous
article, we proposed that the relationship
between different cognitive states (A
IN
with A
and A
AC
with A
), which are summarized in θ
value, results of associative processes related
to cognition mechanisms (Beauvais, 2013).
Table 3. Summary of the quantum-like model describing Benveniste’s experiments.
Non-commutable observables (θ ≠ 0) Commutable
observables
(θ = 0)
With
interference term
(superposition)
Without
interference term
(no superposition)
Presence of signal Yes
a
Yes
b
No
c
Concordance of labels and outcomes
d
High
e
Low NA
Probability of concordant pairs: P(A
CP
) |a cos θ + b sin θ|
2
a
2
cos
2
θ + b
2
sin
2
θ a
2
Probability of discordant pairs: P(A
DP
) |b cos θa sin θ|
2
b
2
cos
2
θ + a
2
sin
2
θ b
2
Corresponding experimental situations
Open-label or
blinding by
type-2 observer
Blinding by
type-1 observer
Unqualified or
untrained experimenter
NA: not applicable
a
P
II
(A
) = a
2
× P
II
(A
DP
) + b
2
× P
II
(A
CP
); a
2
is the proportion of “inactive” labels (IN) and b
2
is the proportion of “active” labels (AC)
b
P
I
(A
) = sin
2
θ
c
Observables are commutable with cos θ = 1 and sin θ = 0; then P(A
) = 0 and P(A
) = 1 (only background is associated with A;
there is no signal)
d
Concordant pairs : A
IN
associated with A
or A
AC
associated with A
e
For sin θ = b (and consequently cos θ = a), the quantum interference is maximal with
P
II
(A
CP
) = 1 and P
II
(A
DP
) = 0.
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
206
Outcomes after type-1 blinding or type-
2 blinding
We note first that open-label experiments or
experiment after blinding with type-2 observer
are not formally different since experimenter A
and type-2 observer O are on the same
“branch” of the reality described by the state
vector (Figure 1) (Beauvais 2013):
( cos sin )
( cos sin )
AO CP CP
DP CP
a b A O
b a A O
 
 
 
 
With the above formulas, we calculate now
the outcomes of experiments by supposing
that the number of “inactive” samples (labels
IN) and “active” samples (labels AC) are equal
(a
2
= 0.5 and b
2
= 0.5); we suppose that
quantum-like correlations are optimal
(cos θ = a and sin θ = b):
P
II
(A
CP
) = |a cos θ + b sin θ|
2
= 1
P
II
(A
DP
) = |b cos θa sin θ|
2
= 0
P
I
(A
CP
|A
IN
) = cos
2
θ = 0.5
P
I
(A
CP
|A
AC
) = sin
2
θ = 0.5
Therefore, after blinding with type-2
observer (or in open-label experiments), all
samples with IN labels are associated with
background and all samples with AC label are
associated with signal. In contrast, after
blinding with type-1 observer, P
I
(A
CP
) = 0.5
and P
I
(A
DP
) = 0.5. In other words, in type-1
blind setting, the proportion of samples with
AC labels associated with signal decreases
from 100% to 50% and the proportion of
samples with IN labels associated with signal
increases from 0% to 50%. Therefore,
everything happens as if “biological activity”
(signal) “jumped” from some samples with AC
label to samples with IN label. These apparent
“jumps” of activity between samples were
precisely a blocking issue in the
demonstrations aimed to provide a proof of
concept on the reality of the biological effects
related to “memory of water”. Therefore, our
quantum-like model easily describes these
“disturbances” without supposing additional
hypotheses involving “external” causes or
experimental artifacts.
Numerical application
We are now able to apply these calculations to
the historical series of Benveniste’s
experiments described in this article; in each
series, one unique sample with “active” label
had to be “guessed” out of ten (i.e., a
2
= 0.9
and b
2
= 0.1). With the open-label samples or
after type-2 blinding, the probability of
concordant pairs was maximal; therefore, for
all experiments (including type-1
experiments), we take sin θ = b.
In experiments of May 13
th
1993, two
“successes” out of four (50%) were observed;
the 95% confidence interval of this proportion
is [0.068–0.932] (Clopper-Pearson confidence
interval for a binomial parameter).
According to the formalism, after type-
1 blinding, the probability for a sample
(regardless label) to be associated with signal
is random and is therefore b
2
= 0.1; among
series of ten samples, the probability to draw a
series with one and only one signal is 0.29
(binomial law). Therefore, the theoretical
probability to “draw” the “good” sequence (a
10-sample series with signal at the same place
as AC label) is 0.29 × 0.1 = 0.029; this value is
excluded of the 95% confidence interval
calculated above. However, we must consider
that some parts of any blind experiment are
nevertheless open-label: in the present case,
one active sample and nine inactive samples in
each series was defined by the protocol and
was available information. Therefore, statistics
must be applied on the subgroup of
permutations of ten samples with one and only
one signal. The theoretical probability for
“success” (one unique signal at the expected
place) is then 0.1 (and not 0.029 as above).
This value is now included in the calculated
95% confidence interval.
More than accuracy of calculation, the
important point is that, after type-1 blinding,
probability for “success” is strongly decreased.
Moreover, taking into account all information
available to the experimenter allows better
fitting with the quantum-like model.
Discussion
The “public demonstration” of Benveniste’s
experiments described in the present article
was performed with a wealth of precautions
rarely achieved in usual research. Many
witnesses were involved and in-house blinding
was superimposed to blinding by “outside”
participants. It is important to emphasize
again that a signal was found associated to
four samples out of forty; this result was
important and remains unexplained in the
present knowledge of science. However, only
two signals were at the “expected” place.
Therefore, the demonstration was a “half-
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
207
success”; totally convincing results were
paradoxically not achieved although the test of
in-house blinding was passed with complete
success.
The main problem in the “memory of
water” experiments is not so much the lack of
explanation on the origin of these phenomena,
but the absence of a logical framework.
Indeed, faced with the results of Benveniste’s
experiments, there is an unavoidable dilemma
if we interpret them in a classical frame.
Indeed, if we assume – as Benveniste did –
that “something” was present in samples with
“active” labels (hypothesis of “memory of
water”), we are then unable to explain why
these experiments failed more frequently than
expected after type-1 blinding (two out of four
experiments in the data presented in this
article). If we tempt to explain the “jumps of
activity” as artifacts (random triggering of the
measurement apparatus or random
contamination), probability calculations do
not support such hypothesis. Of course, we can
also tempt to dismiss the hypothesis of
“memory of water” and its avatars, but we are
unable to explain the emergence of a signal
from background and a bulk of coherent
results (such as the significant correlations
that persisted after type-2 blinding).
A third possibility is to change the
logical framework and to use a generalized
probability theory (that includes classical
probability theory as a limit theory). In this
later case, emergence of signal and
presence/absence of correlations according to
experimental context are simply described
without additional ad hoc hypotheses. The
passage from classical to quantum logic
requires only non-null value for the parameter
θ. The alternate way proposed by quantum-
like formalism is obviously not intuitive.
Nevertheless, if we accept an effort of
abstraction, a couple of simple equations can
give a formal framework to these poorly
understood experiments and quantitative
statistical modeling can be performed.
In this quantum-like framework, there
is no paradox; “successes” and “failures”
appear then as the two faces of the same coin.
In the paradigmatic two-slit experiment of
Young, observing “waves” (interference
pattern on the screen) is not considered as a
success whereas observing “particles” (no
interference pattern after which-path
measurement) is not considered as a failure. In
the quantum-like model of Benveniste’s
experiments, we can decide to observe either
“waves” (high rate of correlated pairs in open-
label or type-2 blind settings) or “particles”
(low rate of correlated pairs in type-1 blind
setting) (Beauvais 2013). “Waves” and
“particles” are two complementary aspects of
the same quantum (or quantum-like) object.
Table 4 summarizes the “successes” and
“failures” of Benveniste’s experiments
according to the different experimental
contexts.
Table 4. Contextuality in Benveniste’s experiments: three different patterns of results are observed according to experimental
context.
Experimental context
Open-label or blinding
by type-2 observer Blinding by type-1
observer
Unqualified or
untrained
experimenter
Expected results
a
↓↓↓↓↑↑↑↑ ↓↓↓↓↑↑↑↑ ↓↓↓↓↑↑↑↑
Observed results ↓↓↓↓↑↑↑↑ ↓↓↑↑↓↑↓↑ ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Probability of concordant pairs 1 1/2 1/2
Description of results Signal present at
expected places
Signal present but at
random places No signal
Conclusion according
to classic logic Success Failure
(“jumps of activity
between samples)
Failure
Conclusion according
to quantum logic
θ ≠ 0 with
superposition of
quantum states
(interferences)
θ ≠ 0 without
superposition of
quantum states
(no interferences)
θ = 0 (classical
probabilities apply)
a
Experiments with equal number numbers of “inactive” and “active” labels and with maximal quantum interferences (a
2
= b
2
= 0.5 and sin θ = b).
NeuroQuantology | June 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 | Page 197-208
Beauvais F., Benveniste’s experiments and quantum-li ke probabilities
www.neuroquantology.com
208
This quantum-like model is in the spirit
of quantum cognition, an emerging research
field that proposes to model cognitive
mechanisms and information processing in
human brain by using some notions from the
formalism of quantum physics such as
contextuality or entanglement. Using
quantum-like probabilities allowed addressing
problems that appeared paradoxical in a
classical frame. These new tools have been
applied to human memory, decision making,
personality psychology, etc (see for example
the special issue of Journal of Mathematical
Psychology in 2009) (Bruza et al., 2009).
Conclusions
The “paradoxical” results of a series of
Benveniste’s experiments performed in 1993,
which were closely controlled and blinded by
observers not belonging to Benveniste’s team,
were reassessed. Using a quantum-like model,
the probabilities of the different outcomes
were calculated according to experimental
context and no logical paradox persisted. All
the features of Benveniste’s experiments were
taken into account with this model, which did
not involve the hypothesis of “memory of
water” or any other “local” explanation.
Acknowledgements
This article is dedicated to the late Jacques
Benveniste and Michel Schiff.
Author disclosure statement
No conflict of interest.
References
Aïssa J, Jurgens P, Litime MH, Béhar I and Benveniste J.
Electronic transmission of the cholinergic signal. Faseb J
1995; 9: A683.
Aïssa J, Litime MH, Attias E, Allal A and Benveniste J.
Transfer of molecular signals via electronic circuitry.
Faseb J 1993; 7: A602.
Beauvais F (2007). L’Âme des Molécules – Une histoire de la
"mémoire de l’eau". Collection Mille Mondes (ISBN:
978-1-4116-6875-1); available at http://www.mille-
mondes.fr
Beauvais F. Memory of water and blinding. Homeopathy
2008; 97: 41-42.
Beauvais F. Emergence of a signal from background noise in
the "memory of water" experiments: how to explain it?
Explore (NY) 2012; 8: 185-196.
Beauvais F. Description of Benveniste’s experiments using
quantum-like probabilities. J Sci Explor 2013; 27: 39-67.
Benveniste J (2005). Ma vérité sur la mémoire de l'eau,
Albin Michel, Paris, .
Benveniste J, Aïssa J and Guillonnet D. Digital biology:
specificity of the digitized molecular signal. Faseb J
1998; 12: A412.
Benveniste J, Aïssa J, Litime MH, Tsangaris G and Thomas
Y. Transfer of the molecular signal by electronic
amplification. Faseb J 1994; 8: A398.
Benveniste J, Arnoux B and Hadji L. Highly dilute antigen
increases coronary flow of isolated heart from
immunized guinea-pigs. Faseb J 1992; 6: A1610.
Benveniste J, Davenas E, Ducot B, Cornillet B, Poitevin B
and Spira A. L'agitation de solutions hautement diluées
n'induit pas d'activité biologique spécifique. Comptes
rendus de l'Académie des sciences. Série 2, Mécanique,
Physique, Chimie, Sciences de l'univers, Sciences de la
Terre 1991; 312: 461-466.
Benveniste J, Jurgens P and Aïssa J. Digital
recording/transmission of the cholinergic signal. Faseb J
1996; 10: A1479.
Benveniste J, Jurgens P, Hsueh W and Aïssa J. Transatlantic
transfer of digitized antigen signal by telephone link. J
Allergy Clin Immunol 1997; 99: S175.
Bruza P, Busemeyer JR and Gabora L. Introduction to the
special issue on quantum cognition. J Math Psychol
2009; 53: 303-305.
D'espagnat B. Consciousness and the Wigner's friend
problem. Foundations of Physics 2005; 35: 1943-1966.
Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, Oberbaum M, Robinzon B,
Miadonna A, Tedeschi A, Pomeranz B, Fortner P, Belon
P and Et al., Human basophil degranulation triggered by
very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature 1988; 333:
816-818.
Davenas E, Poitevin B and Benveniste J. Effect of mouse
peritoneal macrophages of orally administered very high
dilutions of silica. Eur J Pharmacol 1987; 135: 313-319.
De Pracontal M (1990). Les mystères de la mémoire de l'eau,
La Découverte, Paris.
Hadji L, Arnoux B and Benveniste J. Effect of dilute
histamine on coronary flow of guinea-pig isolated heart.
Inhibition by a magnetic field. Faseb J 1991; 5: A1583.
Maddox J. Waves caused by extreme dilution. Nature 1988;
335: 760-763.
Reiff S, Katkin ES and Friedman R. Classical conditioning of
the human blood pressure response. Int J Psychophysiol
1999; 34: 135-145.
Schiff M (1998). The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and
the Battle of Ideas in the New Science, Thorsons
Publishers, London.
Schiff M, Duyme M, Dumaret A, Stewart J, Tomkiewicz S
and Feingold J. Intellectual status of working-class
children adopted early into upper-middle-class families.
Science 1978; 200: 1503-1504.
Thomas Y. The history of the Memory of Water.
Homeopathy 2007; 96: 151-157.
Thomas Y, Schiff M, Belkadi L, Jurgens P, Kahhak L and
Benveniste J. Activation of human neutrophils by
electronically transmitted phorbol-myristate acetate.
Med Hypotheses 2000; 54: 33-39.
Wikipedia. Wigner's friend. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend. 2013.
... These "public demonstrations" were designed as "proof of concept" to give a definitive confirmation on the reality of "electronic transmission" or "digital biology". A protocol was defined and after the experiments were done, a report with all raw data was sent to all participants [7,21,22]. ...
... During these demonstrations, control samples and samples supposed to have received specific "biological information" were prepared (in some experiments of "digital biology", the "samples" were computer files) [7,21,22]. The sample preparation was performed in another laboratory under strict control by other scientists, and the initial labels of the samples were replaced with code numbers by participants not belonging to Benveniste's team. ...
... Details of these public demonstrations organized from 1992 to 1997 with the rodent isolated heart model have been given elsewhere [7,21,23] and one of them has been thoroughly analyzed in a recent article [22]. So what did not work in these demonstrations? ...
Article
Full-text available
The case of the “memory of water” was an outstanding scientific controversy of the end of the twentieth century which has not been satisfactorily resolved. Although an experimenter effect has been proposed to explain Benveniste’s experiments, no evidence or convincing explanation supporting this assumption have been reported. One of the unexplained characteristics of these experiments was the different outcomes according to the conditions of blinding. In this article, an original probabilistic modeling of these experiments is described that rests on a limited set of hypotheses and takes into account measurement fluctuations. All characteristics of these disputed results can be described, including their “paradoxical” aspects; no hypothesis on changes of water structure is necessary. The results of the disputed Benveniste’s experiments appear to be a misinterpreted epiphenomenon of a more general phenomenon. Therefore, this reappraisal of Benveniste’s experiments suggests that these results deserved attention even though the hypothesis of “memory of water” was not supported. The experimenter effect remains largely unexplored in biosciences and this modeling could give a theoretical framework for some improbable, unexplained or poorly reproducible results.
... The protocol of these experimental demonstrations was designed as ''proof of concept'' to hopefully give a definitive confirmation on the reality of ''electronic transmission'' or ''digital biology''. Details on these demonstrations have been given elsewhere (Beauvais 2007(Beauvais , 2012(Beauvais , 2013a; the results of one public demonstration has been thoroughly analyzed in a recent article (Beauvais 2013b). ...
... This was in contrast with open-label experiments or blind experiments with Bob who locally checked the results; in this case, ''expected'' results were observed. Such a series of experiments with both Bob and Eve who assessed the results has been described in detail in a previous article (Beauvais 2013b). Description of Benveniste's experiments in different experimental conditions (with or without Eve's assessment) have been reported elsewhere (Beauvais 2012(Beauvais , 2013a. ...
... The outcomes of the trials strongly depended on the location of people who assessed success rates of blind experiments (success with Bob vs. not better than random with Eve). We analyzed also in detail a ''public demonstration'' with four series of blind experiments controlled by Eve and Bob (Beauvais 2013b). ...
Article
Full-text available
Benveniste’s experiments were at the origin of a scientific controversy that has never been satisfactorily resolved. Hypotheses based on modifications of water structure that were proposed to explain these experiments (“memory of water”) were generally considered as quite improbable. In the present paper, we show that Benveniste’s experiments violated the law of total probability, one of the pillars of classical probability theory. Although this could suggest that quantum logic was at work, the decoherence process is however at first sight an obstacle to describe this macroscopic experimental situation. Based on the principles of a personalist view of probability (quantum Bayesianism or QBism), a modeling could nevertheless be built that fitted the outcomes reported in Benveniste’s experiments. Indeed, in QBism, there is no split between microscopic and macroscopic, but between the world where an agent lives and his internal experience of that world. The outcome of an experiment is thus displaced from the object to its perception by an agent. By taking into account both the personalist view of probability and measurement fluctuations, all characteristics of Benveniste’s experiments could be described in a simple modeling: change of the biological system from resting state to “activated” state, concordance of “expected” and observed outcomes and apparent “jumping” of “biological activities” from sample to sample. No hypothesis on change of water structure was necessary. In conclusion, a modeling of Benveniste’s experiments based on a personalist view of probability offers for the first time a logical framework for these experiments that have remained controversial and paradoxical till date.
... The paradoxes of Benveniste's experiments The simplest answer to the question raised in the last paragraph is that an unexpected and puzzling phenomenon poisoned the experiments, more particularly some blind experiments performed with the participation of other scientists (Beauvais, 2008). We have described in details these experiments and a comprehensive analysis of one of them has been recently published (Beauvais, 2013c). ...
... Therefore, the explanation by "electromagnetic contamination" was limited. It was as if the conditions of blinding (type-1 vs. type-2 controllers) influenced the outcomes (Beauvais, 2008;Beauvais, 2013c). In a next section, we will precisely define the role of the different observers who participated to the blinding of the experiments. ...
... Quantum-like correlations of the "cognitive states" of the experimenter To solve the dilemma described in the previous section, we proposed in a series of articles to describe these experiments using notions from quantum logic (Beauvais, 2012;2013a;Beauvais, 2013c;. In the model that we described, there is no need of postulating "memory of water". ...
Article
Full-text available
In previous articles, we proposed to describe the results of Benveniste’s experiments using a theoretical framework based on quantum logic. This formalism described all characteristics of these controversial experiments and no paradox persisted. This interpretation supposed to abandon an explanation based on a classical local causality such as the “memory of water hypothesis. In the present article, we describe with the same formalism the cognitive states of different experimenters who interact together. In this quantum-like model, the correlations observed in Benveniste’s experiments appear to be the consequence of the intersubjective agreement of the experimenters.
... In contrast, in blind experiments with remote supervisors who did not participate to the experiments and compared the observed system states and the labels under a code, the results were not better than random. In other words, the "activated" state was evenly associated with samples supposed to be "inactive" and "active" [21]. It is important to underscore that an "activated" state was nevertheless observed and, whatever its place, its emergence was unexplained by a classical approach. ...
... I described these experiments in details in a book [23] (now translated in English [10]), more particularly the experiments that were designed as proofs of concept. Then I tempted to decipher the logic of these experiments in a series of articles [21,[24][25][26][27]. The purpose of these articles was also to show that these results were consistent and deserved to be considered from a fresh point of view, even though the price to pay was an abandon of the initial hypothesis (namely, a molecular-like effect without molecules). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background: Benveniste’s biology experiments suggested the existence of molecular-like effects without molecules (“memory of water”). In this article, it is proposed that these disputed experiments could have been the consequence of a previously unnoticed and non-conventional experimenter effect. Methods: A probabilistic modelling is built in order to describe an elementary laboratory experiment. A biological system is modelled with two possible states (“resting” and “activated”) and exposed to two experimental conditions labelled “control” and “test”, but both biologically inactive. The modelling takes into account not only the biological system, but also the experimenters. In addition, an outsider standpoint is adopted to describe the experimental situation. Results: A classical approach suggests that, after experiment completion, the “control” and “test” labels of biologically-inactive conditions should be both associated with “resting” state (i.e. no significant relationship between labels and system states). However, if the fluctuations of the biological system are also considered, a quantum-like relationship emerges and connects labels and system states (analogous to a biological “effect” without molecules). Conclusions: No hypotheses about water properties or other exotic explanations are needed to describe Benveniste’s experiments, including their unusual features. This modelling could be extended to other experimental situations in biology, medicine and psychology.
... These proof-of-concept experiments systematically failed in the sense that "activated" states were always randomly distributed between test samples with "inactive" and "active" labels. 1,22,23 To explain these troublesome failures, Benveniste proposed many post hoc explanations (e.g., water contaminations, interferences with external electromagnetic fields, "jumps of activity" from one test sample to another, human errors for sample allocation). 1 Despite further improvements in devices and procedures to prevent these disturbances, the weirdness persisted. The important point, however, is that these possible external disturbances did not account for "successful" results with open-label test samples even in blind conditions with an "inside" supervisor or an automatic device (more precise definitions of "inside" and "outside" supervisors are given later). ...
... 25,26 In 2013, I reanalyzed in depth a series of "digital biology" experiments with isolated rodent heart performed by Benveniste's team. 23 The main interest of this series of experiments was that both inside and outside supervisors operated on the same test samples. For these experiments, a wealth 14/20 of precautions had been taken and nevertheless the disturbing effect of an outside supervisor was clearly evidenced. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The “memory of water” experiments suggested the existence of molecular-like effects without molecules. Although no convincing evidence of modifications of water – specific of biologically-active molecules – has been reported up to now, consistent changes of biological systems were nevertheless recorded. We propose an alternate explanation based on classical conditioning of the experimenter. Using a probabilistic model, we describe not only the biological system, but also the experimenter engaged in an elementary dose-response experiment. We assume that during conventional experiments involving genuine biologically-active molecules, the experimenter is involuntarily conditioned to expect a pattern, namely a relationship between descriptions (or “labels”) of experimental conditions and corresponding biological system states. The model predicts that the conditioned experimenter could continue to record the learned pattern even in the absence of the initial cause, namely the biologically-active molecules. The phenomenon is self-sustained because the observation of the expected pattern reinforces the initial conditioning. A necessary requirement is the use of a system submitted to random fluctuations with autocorrelated successive states (no forced return to the initial position). The relationship recorded by the conditioned experimenter is, however, not causal in this model because blind experiments with an “outside” supervisor lead to a loss of correlations (i.e., system states randomly associated to “labels”). In conclusion, this psychophysical model allows explaining the results of “memory of water” experiments without referring to water or another local cause. It could be extended to other scientific fields in biology, medicine and psychology when suspecting an experimenter effect.
... In contrast, in blind experiments with remote supervisors who did not participate to the experiments and compared the observed system states and the labels under a code, the results were no better than random. In other words, the "activated" state was evenly associated with samples supposed to be "inactive" and "active" [21]. It is important to underscore that an "activated" state was nevertheless observed and, whatever its place, its emergence was unexplained by a classical approach. ...
... I described these experiments in details in a book [23] (now translated into English [10]), more particularly the experiments that were designed as proofs of concept. Then I tempted to decipher the logic of these experiments in a series of articles [21,[24][25][26][27]. The purpose of these articles was also to show that these results were consistent and deserved to be considered from a fresh point of view, even though the price to pay was an abandon of the initial hypothesis (namely, a molecular-like effect without molecules). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Benveniste's biology experiments suggested the existence of molecular-like effects without molecules ("memory of water"). In this article, it is proposed that these disputed experiments could have been the consequence of a previously unnoticed and non-conventional experimenter effect.Methods:A probabilistic modelling is built in order to describe an elementary laboratory experiment. A biological system is modelled with two possible states ("resting" and "activated") and exposed to two experimental conditions labelled "control" and "test", but both are biologically inactive. The modelling takes into account not only the biological system, but also the experimenters. In addition, an outsider standpoint is adopted to describe the experimental situation.Results:A classical approach suggests that, after experiment completion, the "control" and "test" labels of biologically-inactive conditions should both be associated with the "resting" state (i.e., no significant relationship between labels and system states). However, if the fluctuations of the biological system are also considered, a quantum-like relationship emerges and connects labels and system states (analogous to a biological "effect" without molecules).Conclusions:No hypotheses about water properties or other exotic explanations are needed to describe Benveniste's experiments, including their unusual features. This modelling could be extended to other experimental situations in biology, medicine, and psychology.
... I described recently the details and the analysis of a series of experiments including both inhouse and 'external' blinding. 34 Of interest, this stumbling block occurred with different biological systems, different active molecules, different experimenters and different devices to 'imprint' water (high dilutions, 'transmission' experiments, digital biology experiments). The fact that a simple modification of the blind design could have such consequences in these different experimental models over an extended period of time is in my opinion the scientific fact of this story. ...
... Indeed, the fact that in-house blind samples e prepared in the same conditions as samples with external supervision and submitted to the same supposed 'disturbances' e behaved as 'expected' was inconsistent. 34 One must underscore that such a difference according to blind design was not specific to Benveniste's experiments. Simply, mismatches were more obvious with protocols designed to minimize experimental loopholes and with the desire of Benveniste to convince other scientists with flawless results. ...
Article
Full-text available
In previous articles, a description of 'unconventional' experiments (e.g. in vitro or clinical studies based on high dilutions, 'memory of water' or homeopathy) using quantum-like probability was proposed. Because the mathematical formulations of quantum logic are frequently an obstacle for physicians and biologists, a modified modeling that rests on classical probability is described in the present article. This modeling is inspired from a relational interpretation of quantum physics that applies not only to microscopic objects, but also to macroscopic structures, including experimental devices and observers. In this framework, any outcome of an experiment is not an absolute property of the observed system as usually considered but is expressed relatively to an observer. A team of interacting observers is thus described from an external view point based on two principles: the outcomes of experiments are expressed relatively to each observer and the observers agree on outcomes when they interact with each other. If probability fluctuations are also taken into account, correlations between 'expected' and observed outcomes emerge. Moreover, quantum-like correlations are predicted in experiments with local blind design but not with centralized blind design. No assumption on 'memory' or other physical modification of water is necessary in the present description although such hypotheses cannot be formally discarded. In conclusion, a simple modeling of 'unconventional' experiments based on classical probability is now available and its predictions can be tested. The underlying concepts are sufficiently intuitive to be spread into the homeopathy community and beyond. It is hoped that this modeling will encourage new studies with optimized designs for in vitro experiments and clinical trials.
... Public demonstrations with the active participation of colleagues to the experiments were repeatedly organized by Benveniste [2]. These meetings were occasions for Benveniste to present his results and to involve other scientists in order to convince them of the validity of his theories; one of these demonstrations has been recently analyzed in depth [15]. These public experiments were designed as a proof-of-concept and were generally performed in two steps. ...
... Overall, this formalism fits the corpus of the experimental data gained by Benveniste's team over the years [2,13,15,23]. Moreover, in this modeling, no physico-chemical explanation such as "memory of water" is necessary. ...
Article
Full-text available
Benveniste’s experiments have been the subject of an international scientific controversy (known as the case of the “memory of water”). We recently proposed to describe these results in a modeling in which the outcome of an experiment is considered personal property (named cognitive state) of the observer and not an objective property of the observed system. As a consequence, the correlations between “expected” results and observed results in Benveniste’s experiments could be considered the consequence of quantum-like interferences of the possible cognitive states of the experimenters/observers. In the present paper, we evidence that small random fluctuations from the environment together with intersubjective agreement force the “expected” results and the observed results experienced by the observers into a noncommuting relationship. The modeling also suggests that experimental systems with enough compliance (e.g., biological systems) are more suitable to evidence quantum-like correlations. No hypothesis related to “memory of water” or other elusive modifications of water structure is necessary. In conclusion, a quantum-like interpretation of Benveniste’s experiments offers a logical framework for these experiments that have remained paradoxical to now. This quantum-like modeling could be adapted to other areas of research for which there are issues of reproducibility of results by other research teams and/or suspicion of nontrivial experimenter effect.
Article
The “memory of water” experiments suggested the existence of molecular-like effects without molecules. Although no convincing evidence of modifications of water – specific of biologically-active molecules – has been reported up to now, consistent changes of biological systems were nevertheless recorded. We propose an alternate explanation based on classical conditioning of the experimenter. Using a probabilistic model, we describe not only the biological system, but also the experimenter engaged in an elementary dose-response experiment. We assume that during conventional experiments involving genuine biologically-active molecules, the experimenter is involuntarily conditioned to expect a pattern, namely a relationship between descriptions (or “labels”) of experimental conditions and corresponding biological system states. The model predicts that the conditioned experimenter could continue to record the learned pattern even in the absence of the initial cause, namely the biologically-active molecules. The phenomenon is self-sustained because the observation of the expected pattern reinforces the initial conditioning. A necessary requirement is the use of a system submitted to random fluctuations with autocorrelated successive states (no forced return to the initial position). The relationship recorded by the conditioned experimenter is, however, not causal in this model because blind experiments with an “outside” supervisor lead to a loss of correlations (i.e., system states randomly associated to “labels”). In conclusion, this psychophysical model allows explaining the results of “memory of water” experiments without referring to water or another local cause. It could be extended to other scientific fields in biology, medicine and psychology when suspecting an experimenter effect.
Article
Full-text available
When human polymorphonuclear basophils, a type of white blood cell with antibodies of the immunoglobulin E (IgE) type on its surface, are exposed to anti-IgE antibodies, they release histamine from their intracellular granules and change their staining properties. The latter can be demonstrated at dilutions of anti-IgE that range from 1 x 10(2) to 1 x 10(120); over that range, there are successive peaks of degranulation from 40 to 60% of the basophils, despite the calculated absence of any anti-IgE molecules at the highest dilutions. Since dilutions need to be accompanied by vigorous shaking for the effects to be observed, transmission of the biological information could be related to the molecular organization of water.
Book
Full-text available
L'histoire d'une controverse scientifique: l'affaire de la "mémoire de l'eau". Un véritable thriller scientifique: description minutieuse et vulgarisée des expériences controversées de Jacques Benveniste, nombreux détails inédits de la célèbre polémique avec la revue scientifique Nature et son directeur John Maddox. Texte téléchargeable en entier.
Article
Previous studies suggest that the biological activity of agonists can be transferred to water by electromagnetic means [1-7]. Since July 1995, in keeping with these results, we have digitized, recorded, and 'replayed' to water the activity of acetylcholine (ACh) or water (W) as control. ACh and W were recorded (16 bits, 22 KHz), for 1-5 sec, via an especially designed transducer, on the hard disk of a computer equipped with a Sound Blaster 16 card. Files were digitally amplified and the signal of digitally recorded ACh or W was replayed for 15 min, via the transducer, to 15 ml, W-containing plastic tubes. W thus exposed (dACh, dW) was then perfused to isolated guinea-pig hearts. In 13 open experiments, coronary flow variations were (%, mean + SEM, nb of samples): W+dW(not stat. diff.), 3.3 + 0.2, 20; dACh, 16.2 + 1.0, 33, p = 4.1 e- 10 vs W+dW; ACh (0.1 M), 23.4 + 2.8, 12, p = 5 e-3 vs dACh. In 25 blind experiments: W-fdW, 3.6 + 0-3, 61; dACh, 20.4 + 1.3, 58, p = 1 e-16 vs W+dW; ACh (0.1 M), 28.1 + 2-3, 24, p = 3 e-3 vs dACh. Atropine inhibited the effects of both ACh and dACh. Moreover, we have recently transferred specific digital signals via telephone lines. These results indicate that the molecular signal is composed of waveforms in the 0-22 Khz range. They open the way to purely digital procedures for the analysis, modification and transmission of molecular activity.